Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. Recommendation 46 of the review is:

“The ability to report directly to the Criminal Allegations Against Police Division of COPFS a complaint of a crime by a police officer should be much better publicised and made more accessible to the public by COPFS”.

I wonder why you thought that that was the case—that a complaint should be widely publicised? Why is that or, rather, what was meant by that?

I understand. That is helpful.

That is really interesting and helpful, because we thought that there might be a legal reason for that. Now that we know that there is not, we can pursue that.

I want to keep using an example—a simple example. On the face of it, if a police officer is accused of assault, that is a criminal case that may go to court, and the court may find the officer not guilty.

The PIRC has said that it is largely meeting those targets but that you can take up to six months.

Right.

Good morning. I want to begin by asking you about the lower standard that you mentioned—I think that this is the first time that I have heard about that. Is that contained in law or guidance? Where does that come from?

I expect that we will hear from the next panel about what happens after the 90 days. I note that you say in your submission that a distinction should be drawn between

“allegations made while an officer still holds the office of constable”

and

“allegations made subsequent to the officer holding the office of constable”—

in other words, where the allegation comes once they are no longer with the police. Does that mean that you think that there should be some adjustment to the bill?

Thank you. Can you clarify something that you said to Sharon Dowey? This matter came up in previous evidence. In a particular case that the committee looked at, the police officer was, I think, suspended or put on restricted duties, and he was not allowed to know what the allegations against him were. The suggestion in that evidence session was that there might be legal reasons for that. What is the position on that?

And, if you think there is a reasonable inference of criminality, that is where the PIRC—

So, in all other cases, there is a certain standard of sufficiency that is applied, but, when it comes to police officers, you have to do something completely different. Is that not quite an odd approach for a prosecutor to deal with?